That's probably why he doesn't get paid $1m a year
Yeah but near enough to be too much.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
That's probably why he doesn't get paid $1m a year
So in your fairyland, nobody is worth $1m a season? Because nobody has had a season of 19 disposals, 5 goals and 33 hitouts a game.
You're saying players don't gather 30 d, and 3 goals a week?
Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.You're saying players don't gather 30 d, and 3 goals a week?
Sure there's not many of them, there's a couple, that's why not many get paid like Grundy, because there's not many of them. But Grundy is getting paid like players that are having impact that he's not having.
If he plays like pre lim Gawn every week, then yep it's justified, until then the money could be better used.
I'd say it very confidentally. I think Harry McKay is the only player in the league who averaged that many goals per game- (someone who played not many games may also have) And Harry averaged less than 10 possessions a game.
Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.
Leigh Matthews at his best nearly qualifies (27 disposals, 3.8 goals). Dusty's closest was 30 disposals and 1.5 goals a week. Gary Ablett Jr. was 32 and 1.8 goals a week.
So no, there is basically one player in history that I can think of that even sniffed 30 disposals and 3 goals a week. And it is the greatest player of all time.
If you think there aren't any players worth it that's fine. It's irrelevant, because there's no getting it back now. If bog average players like Brad Hill and Zac Williams are earning nearly $1m a season then All-Australians are definitely going to.Without going down the rabbit hole of only one player in history with those numbers, it just proves the point.
The club is paying Grundy the sort of money that only that one player should be getting.
Sure, one could use the Buddy argument 'but hey look over there' or other clubs. Great, bad for swans good for everyone else.
Grundy contract, bad for us, good for everyone else.
And let's not pretend we're in a comfortable cap position, we aren't.
That's the whole point of contention around his contract, he'll never play to those sort of dollars, not possible. We are paying too much.
Anyone can defend it til the cows come home, doesn't change what he's getting paid and doesn't change our cap situation. If you're happy with it then good for you.
Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.
Leigh Matthews at his best nearly qualifies (27 disposals, 3.8 goals). Dusty's closest was 30 disposals and 1.5 goals a week. Gary Ablett Jr. was 32 and 1.8 goals a week.
So no, there is basically one player in history that I can think of that even sniffed 30 disposals and 3 goals a week. And it is the greatest player of all time.
Phil might have a claim at most talented of all time, certainly. Just an f-wit when it mattered most!"Phil Carmen"? sorry, I loved Phil and always believed him to be the GOAT, not saying he was, just my fantasy. In regards to Grundy, well, he plays for us so I'm just going to let his footy do the talking. I think he might be in for a great year next year. surely he would be a bit driven to reclaim the number one mantle from gawn, and a new coaching panel will turn him around
Phil also head butted my year 12 teacher Grahame Carbury, I can still see him coming to class with his nose all bandaged upPhil might have a claim at most talented of all time, certainly. Just an f-wit when it mattered most!
I think he'll return reinvigorated
If you think there aren't any players worth it that's fine. It's irrelevant, because there's no getting it back now. If bog average players like Brad Hill and Zac Williams are earning nearly $1m a season then All-Australians are definitely going to.
It's not a "look over there" argument. It's the nature of the football free agent market. If we don't play the game we lose our A-grade talent. Pretty simple stuffThe 'look over there' argument.
Opposition supporters could you this same 'look over there' argument, 'poorly performing Grundy is getting 1m$ a year'
What I think would be fine is paying someone like Trac, Bont or Dusty at our club that sort of money, not a ruckman, regardless of how good that ruckman is.
And you're right it's irrelevant, yet I'll still reply to posts on the subject and you'll still defend the contract, like we're doing now.
It's not a "look over there" argument. It's the nature of the football free agent market. If we don't play the game we lose our A-grade talent. Pretty simple stuff
I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.And my argument is (and others obviously) we would've been better off to let him go and better use the money.
Instead we're paying money (when the money is tight to begin with) of that rare impact player that wins matches off their own boot with regularity. Grundy is not that player.
Bad for us, good for everyone else.
I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.
I don't think I've ever seen a single one of your posts be positive about the Pies, so this kind of theme from you is unsurprising.
I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.
I don't think I've ever seen a single one of your posts be positive about the Pies, so this kind of theme from you is unsurprising.
If the contract is shite then he contract is shite. But is's a contract and we're stuck with it regardless.The 'look over there' argument.
Opposition supporters could you this same 'look over there' argument, 'poorly performing Grundy is getting 1m$ a year'
What I think would be fine is paying someone like Trac, Bont or Dusty at our club that sort of money, not a ruckman, regardless of how good that ruckman is.
And you're right it's irrelevant, yet I'll still reply to posts on the subject and you'll still defend the contract, like we're doing now.
If the contract is sh*te then he contract is sh*te. But is's a contract and we're stuck with it regardless.
But Grundy is a great player with longevity, so I'd rather have a sh*te contract with him than say a Brad Hill.
If you look at both of them, then we are the lucky ones.
Agree to disagree, Grundy is not a 'matchwinner' - those players win games off their own boot regularly. He's a great ruckman, not a Trac or Bont.
You've defended the contract and now state it's too long, yeah it is, and also too much.
The only player I would have allocated 1m per year would be G Ablett Snr as he was a true match winner.
The problem we have is that Grundy's contract is going to hamper the Pies unless - 1. We can restructure the contract (don't the AFLPA has that yet), 2. We can trade him (not likely as he is not worth the contract and the other clubs know that) or the most likely 3. The salary cap rises so his overall % of it decreases to make it more manageable.
We know the previous administration did this and we just have to learn to deal with it as bad as it may be.
How many games does Trac or Bont 'win off their own boot' when their teams were going sh1t pre-2021?
There are 25 other problems with our list or salary cap that I'd have a go at before I complained about Grundy,
who we probably paid the market rate for after two of the most dominant years from a Collingwood ruckman since Peter Moore.
I'm not defending it, just saying not every club gets it right. I am sure that if Grundy finished top 3 in the Brownlow for the last 2 years (which he is capable of) we wouldn't even be discussing this. Unfortunately for him, and us, that wasn't the case.Oh I don't disagree.
To be clear I'm replying because others want to debate with me on whether the contract is worthy, I don't think it is. That doesn't mean I don't realize we're stuck with it. It also doesn't mean I don't regard Grundy as a great player, I've clearly stated I believe he is.
Just not worth that money or length of contract.
Also I don't see the point in using other clubs bad contract management to defend bad contract management.
I'm not defending it, just saying not every club gets it right. I am sure that if Grundy finished top 3 in the Brownlow for the last 2 years (which he is capable of) we wouldn't even be discussing this. Unfortunately for him, and us, that wasn't the case.
So we should be paying overs because we're sh*t? I don't think so.
Hmm, just a hint the thread title is about Grundy, just in case you forgot.
And yet we have nothing to show for it, apart from a Brownlow. But we're not here to argue that are we, we're debating the worth of the contract.